@JubalBarca I’m in STEM, and I laughed at that bit. Some scientific data is well organised and annotated, but a huge amount is also an ungodly mess, with no raw source available, no clear ways of reproducing it, and on occasion produced through questionable means. So we’re all in the same boat really.
@Nicovel0 Yeah, polished was a very overblown word choice, mea culpa.
I think there are some real differences I was trying to get at re nominal reusability: even really very good historian-made data has a level of reader interpretation of sources that are simply not at all designed to provide that data or indeed be "truthful" as we would understand it, which adds some inherent reuse & data modelling problems.
But I definitely skipped over that too fast and picked the wrong word, my bad!
@JubalBarca oh it was not a criticism at all, it’s always fun to chat with my humanities/social sciences colleagues and get their view on what data they consider robust and why. And it is my strong belief that if more scientists did so they would be better scientists.